incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Signing DLLs EXEs and Copyright Notices (was RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do)
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:50:06 GMT
Gee Rob, my e-mail client shows a different, appropriate subject to the present thread.

The branch had to do with understanding the difference between "reputational" warnings and
actual malware detections (and false positives), and the variety of ways these things occur.
 It makes need for clarification of the specific situation rather important.  The signed EXE
case comes up in regard to warnings on attempt to execute using the Windows OS.  I suspect
that the non-Windows developers might want to appreciate that.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 14:19
Subject: Re: Signing DLLs EXEs and Copyright Notices (was RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors:
What we can do)

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> Just to be clear, further, the reputation warning on my Windows configuration is neither
from the Windows Installer nor the AV that I have installed.  It is the file downloader that
is part of Internet Explorer 9.  Later, there is a Windows OS warning on attempted execution
of the download.  That is based on detection that the file to be executed is from an unknown
source (not signed) and has been downloaded from the Internet.  Neither of these are AV or
installer behaviors, although the IE9 downloader does provide a "security scan" of downloads.
 I've never seen anything from it other than a reputation warning, though.

That's fine, Dennis.  No one ever said your AV was an issue.  The only
thing I've been talking about in the Symantec errors that some testers
were reporting.  That problem does exist, for the reasons I've stated
and with the solutions I've already given.  I have no idea why you've
hijacked the thread to give elaborate details about how you are *not*
having a similar problem with an entirely different AV product.  It is
irrelevant.  Let's all save time and list traffic by only reporting
issues that exist, not ones that don't exist.


View raw message